That piece comes from the left fringe, which is just as loony as the right fringe.Originally Posted by Ray
When assessing opinions I tend to adopt the Olympic Diving method: assume the low and high scores are compromised, and discard them. Similarly, the far fringes of the ideological spectrum are something one perhaps needs to be aware of, but which have little value except as a curiosity.
Even in the Bush years there was substantial opposition to the wars, particularly the one in Iraq. Those who supported the wars pulled the malleable center with them, largely as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. As people realized that much of the fighting had no connection to 9/11 and that the missions were creeping far beyond what they expected, support for the wars dwindled and opposition grew. I don't think there was anything irrational about that. People supported the idea of stomping the living $#!t out of the people who attacked us... a natural response. When that morphed into an unending and appallingly costly attempt at "nation-building", support dwindled. Again, I see nothing irrational or unexpected about that.
I would consider myself a votary of peace. I hope that everybody is. Not that war isn't occasionally necessary, but it is always to be avoided if possible and is something one uses as a last resort. I do not believe that advocating war is in any sense more inherently patriotic than advocating peace.
Bookmarks